tv [untitled] June 26, 2012 1:30pm-2:00pm EDT
reintegration which is short-term needs and workforce development. i had on the left wellness, behavorial and physical health. we actually had to combine that. i realized i was dividing out types of health which was kind of silly. i'm being short pd here and i understand why. let me give you quick statistics. the peer program's hallmark is they have very precise outcomes. the aspen point model in three years have served 2921 families in colorado springs. 500 military families have been actively navigated. 65 incarcerated veterans have been placed in jobs. 76% did not come for mental health needs. they came for career and reintegration needs. 73% had more than one sector of care that they needed help with. only 16% initially touched the system for a mental health need. this is a real interesting one. annual community costs without peer navigator to colorado spings $6.9 million. annual community costs with peer
navigator $225,000. an 85% reduction. we can solve this problem, but we need to do it at the community level. i can tell you we need your help. we certainly need your money. it is a very, very compelling need, but it's going to be solved at the local community level. not from the top down. thank you all for everything you've done. appreciate it. [ applause ] live now to the brookings institution, where new hampshire senator kelly ayacht will give the opening address. she's trying to avoid a program which would cut spending on national defense programs starting? january. she serves as ranking member of the senate armed services readiness subcommittee. we're hearing that the senator is running a bit late, but she
that you can ignore, think again. squooes ration could be coming come january and it could mean 15% budget cuts in much of the federal budget starting with but hardly ending with defense. that's what we're here to talk about today. we will convene two panels to talk about this suggest. but before doing so, i have the great honor of welcoming to brookings senator held ki ayotte of new hampshire. senator ayotte was elected to the u.s. senate in 2010. so she joined the tea party in one sense -- probably a term that she deserves more than most since she's from new hampshire and could claim a little new england prerogative over that term. her thinking is unpredictable in many ways except that it's centered on trying to resolve our current fiscal plight and the challenges of se quest ration. she has important committee assignments. but also on small business and commerce, which make her acutely
aware of the challenges facing american business, which is a big part of the them of our discussion today as well because of its consequences, the consequences that se kwooes ration would cause to american business and the economy. senator ayotte has already become a major voice in our country's debate over fiscal policy. over national security policy and how to make washington work better. you'll get a lot of insight from latering her this afternoon. her background is in law and law enforcement. she was born in ewe gnash ewe ya, new hampshire. she was the attorney general in new hampshire under both democratic and republican governors. and prior to that had built a reputation as a formidable prosecutor helping new hampshire to its enveeable status as the safest state in the country. before giving her the podium and she'll make remarks and take a couple of questions before we convene our first panel at 2:00,
i want to also extend a word of thanks to your family. as much as i admire your sacrifice i also admire theirs. i know that your husband joe dally up in new hampshire with your two children are sharing their wife and mother with the rest of us. and we need her. so thank you. thank you senator for being here. we look forward to your comments. [ applause ] >> thanks. let me thank you so much, michael. i deeply appreciate being invited here today to be in front of the brookings institution. and i appreciate all of you who have come to participate in this and i'm really thrilled to see the two panels that are following me on this because it's a great array of national security experts, department of defense officials, and members of our defense industrial base that i'm sure will give you even
greater insight than i'll provide today. but what i'd like to do is provide the context of where we are with respect to this issue of se quest ration. our country is facing a grave threat to our national security. i voted against the deal because i didn't like the way this was set up from the beginning in terms of where it put our national security. also i would have liked to see us do just what we should do in terms of the fiscal state of the country and put together a strong, responsible ris fall plan for our country that takes into account the big picture, which obviously is not just defense spending, not just nondefense discretionary spending, but also the 60% plus of our budget that includes mandatory spending. until we do that, we're not
going to get our fiscal house in order in the way that we need to to get our country on the right track. but today we're here to talk about this threat to our national security. i want to put it in perspective. i'm not someone, i serve on the senate armed services committee and the ranking republican on the readiness subcommittee. i'm not someone who says that we shouldn't cut anything from our department of defense. but we have to put into perspective where we are with our department of defense right now because in addition to this issue of sequestration, the president's proposed 2013 budget that is come forward has already been taken up by the senate armed services committee and the house committee as well in terms of the authorizing committees. that will be a cut of $487 billion of spending reductions over the next ten years. and there are some pretty tough choices in those initial
spending reductions. but our defense leaders and secretary panetta have testified before the senate armed services committee about the choices made in those reductions and they're difficult but doable. what we're here talks about today is an additional 500 to $600 billion in across the board fashion that will come in january of this -- 2013 because of the supercommittee's failure to come up with savings. it hits both defense and nondefense. my focus today will be on the defense end. that additional $500 billion, gets close to $6 munn billion when you incrude interest. it's done in an across the board fashion so everything gets cut. there's no strategic thinking to the way it would be implemented and therefore we do everything
insufficiently and if you listen to what our military leaders say about it, starting with secretary panetta he has said we would be shooting ourselves in the head to allow sequestration to go forward in january. he's described us as devastating, catastrophic. it would inflict severe damage to our national security for generations. and to understand why our military leaders are so concerned about this, again, i've been particularly focused on making sure that we maintain the readiness of our forces to prevail in the conflicts that we're involved in today. and when that deterrence fails to defeat our enemies decisively, that's why our -- we
have one of the most competent and battled hardened military forces many the history of our country. i know many in this room have met our men and women who are serving right now. the training that they have. the courage that they've shown has been phenomenal and they are the very best. we cannot at this time in this moment in the history of our country gut our first class forces or break faith with our troops. if you whaer what the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff says, chairman dempsey says if sequestration goes forward that our advantages over potential adversaries will diminish. it will diminish deterrents and quote, increase the likelihood of conflict. and none-us wants to see that happen. if you look at other times in the history of our country where we have reduced defense
spending, let's go back to the easterly '90s, at that point we had ended a conflict. we had thought that we were going to take a peace dividend at that point and of course, coming from where we eventually had 9/11. but at that point there was a feeling in the country that we could scale back on defense spending. and here's where we are today. we're not many the same position at all. we are in a position where according to secretary panetta just last month he said that the threats to our country have not receded. our troops remain engaged in the conflict in afghanistan. we continue to confront a real terrorist threat emanating from somalia, yemen, pakistan and north africa. and as secretary panetta has said we continue to see the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, threats from iran and north korea and turmoil in
the mideast. we also see what is happening the rising power of china in the investment they're making in their military in the asia pacific rejob and of course we have other conflicts like the conflict happening right now in syria. this is not a time for us to make decisions that will undermooin our able toy to confront these challenges that we face right now. with respect to the army, i tole you that the initial 487 billion in reductions that's going to result in approximately a 72,000 reduction in our army. now everyone who's looked at this would agree with getting out of iraq, and a gradual
deline in the level of forces in afghanistan that we were going to do some downsizing of our ground forces. so the initial reduction of 72,000 to our army is happening. but we sequestration, the general has testified that we would be facing an additional 100,000 reduction in our army if we allowed sequestration to go forward. with 50% of that reduction coming from the guard and reserve. i think this is an issue that governors aren't aware of fully yet. although elected officials at all levels in this country are becoming aware of it. the counsel of mayors issued a resolution on the effects of sequestration urging congress to come to an agreement on it. but think about it, 100,000, 50,000 from the guard and reserve and the function that
our guard and reserve play we couldn't have fought in iraq or afghanistan without the guard or reserve and they also play a very important homeland function for our security as well as responding to natural disasters for our governors. the marine corp. is likely going to be reduced at this point by 20,000. if sequestration goes forward, the marine core will face according to the assistant commandant an additional 18,000 in reduction in our marine corp. but here's the thing that keeps me up at night. the assistant for the marine corp. came before the readiness subcommittee. i asked him about the impacts of sequestration and he said this,
sequestration would render the marines incapable of conducting a single major contingency operation. think about it. our marine corp. that to me is a shocking statement. and one that cries out for us on a bipartisan to resolve this issue fch the department of defense chooses to protect manpower accounts when the army and marine corp. would have to cut more deeply than into training, maintenance and modernization funds which of course would have a negative impact on industry, which we're going to talk about in a minute. it would result in us having a navy bringing us back to 1915. ground forces back to 1940 before world war ii, and the smallest air force many the history of our country.
many of our modernization efforts that are underway right now that are very, very important to making sure that our men and women in uniform have the very best equipment to protect our country. but in conjunction with this, no one would say that the department of defense is an area where it's a jobs program. but the reality is that sequestration hurts our economy and it could fundamentally tear our defense industrial base. and that is of deep concern. not only to my membership on the senate armed services committee, but as a member of the small business committee.
it's not just the large defense contractors that will be impacted by the sequestration cuts. but theyrily many times on very small contractors. and in some areas there's one contractor, a small company who's producing the component where you have a sole supplier. when these businesses go out of business or they decide to do something else because they cannot deal with the uncertainty of where we are right now, or they cannot address or keep their bottom line in a sustainable way because of the cuts that are coming, they go out of business and they don't come back. it's not easy for us to recreate that capacity so quickly if we suddenly find ourselves in a situation where we need that type of equipment. when we need that part. and that just doesn't happen overnight. that's a deep concern not only for our large defense contractors, but for many small
businesses throughout this country that serve those contractors. so we're not just talking about the jobs issue, which is of course of concern to anyone who serves in congress. we're talking about lost lives. if we don't give our men and women the equipment that they need, the very best and we don't stay on the cutting edge of technology when it comes to areas like isr and other areas where we need valuable information to protect america. there have been several reports about this which i think will probably be talked about today with the panel. the national association of manufacturers issued a report last week that studied the impacts of sequestration. the bipartisan policy center and the center for security policy have also looked at this issue temperature george mason university has done a study to look state by state to see what are the impacts on jobs. if we go forward with
sequestration. and here's what the report says, more than a million private sector jobs including including 130,000 manufacturing jobs will be lost in 2014 if we continue to sit on our hands in congress. total job losses will increase unemployment by .7% and gdp could be impacted by almost 1% lower in 2014. think about it. where are we nationally with our unemployment of over 40 weeks plus with over 4% unemployment and not only do we undermine our national security, but a lot of people will be out of work as we continue on this path and just a couple of numbers and the naeshing state of virginia is estimated will lose approximately 123,000 jobs. ohio, 18,000 jobs, connecticut, 34,000 jobs, i could go through every state in the nation.
my own home state of new hampshire, 3300 jobs were a small state. i can tell you, 3300 jobs matters very, very much to our state and we're one of the smaller impacts if you look around the country. and some people may believe around here in congress, when i say here, not here in this room, but collectively in congress that this is an issue that we can wait until the lame duck session to address, but the problem is this. the department of defense and the pentagon, they're already pearlized by sequestration. they don't know if it's coming. they worry that we have the political will to resolve this and so they're holding on right now in terms of action or inaction and the contractors are already feeling the impact of this. in fact, bob stephens, ceo of lockheed martin talked about this paralyzing effect of where we are right now inny is quest raigz and he said the very
prospect of sequestration is already having a chilling effect on the industry. we're not going hire and we're not going to make speculative investments and we're not going to invest in incremental training because of uncertainties associated with $53 billion of disruptions and it's's huge disruption to our business and yesterday bob stephens came forward and talked about the fact that they are likely, lockheed martin, is going to have to issue what's called a warn ak notice. our large defense contractors have a duty under federal law prior before 60 to 90 days before a potential lay off is concerned any they have no to notify employees that they're laid off and they are hundreds of thousands of warnac notices that could be issued before the november election which i don't know if that's shtnot a wake-up
members of congress that this is an issue that needs to be addressed now, i don't know what is. the bottom line is that our defense industrial base, they report to their board of directors. they have responsibilities to their employees. they can't wait until december to take the actions that need to be taken and so we will feel the impacts of sequestration before the lame-duck session and it's one of the compelling reasons why this is an issue that i hope will be addressed before the election. we owe that to the american people because our foremost responsibility in this government is to make sure that they're safe and protected and let's not forget that without protection and safety, our economy cannot thrive and grow. we all saw what happened on september 11th, not only the loss of human life, but also the devastating impact on our economy of an event like that.
and so there is -- there is a relationship not only in keeping us safe, but in making us sure that we can continue to prosper as a nation. so where are we and what's next? >> there are three proposals that had been out on the table. they are republican proposals, mainly, and one is one that i am co-sponsoring with senator mccain and others in the senate that deal with the first year of sequestration it's about $109 billion and it addresses both defense and non-defense sequestration because we appreciate that members may come to this to resolve it for different reason ands some may come because they're concerned about the non-defense reseduction dukzs and some may come like me because we're
concerned about the impact on our security. in order to do that, basically what we did is because simpson-bowles recommended for our federal workforce for every three positions that came open, our bill would say that for every three positions that come open you can fill two out of three and we would keep a federal pay freeze through 2014. that covers us for year one of sequestration. the house, chairman mckeown in the house has a similar proposal. his is just implementing the simpson-bowles for every three positions that come open that you can only fill one and then, of course, congressman ryan in the house have actually passed through reconciliation have passed a bill that would address sequestration. and what with i would say is my hope is what will happen is that we will see a bipartisan group get together before this
election because this is too important to kick the can down the road to the lame duck session for the reasons we just described and i don't believe this should be used as some type of chip in the lame duck session where we have the tax rates and we have the dock fix, we have, you name it, it will be up in the lame duck session and our national security should not be put at risk to that. here's the issue of where we are. you know, some have said that they would not, i think, on the democratic end, particularly harry reid has said without tax increases, increases to our tax rates then we're not going resolve sequestration and i think that's a false choice. there are those of us who have said on the republican end we're willing to work with you on revenue, but we're not going further hurt our economy by increasing tax rates, but there were areas of revenue that the super committee came up to, came up with that we're ready to sit
down and talk with you about to resolve this issue before the election, so i would hope that members of both sides of the aisle would see this is an area where we need to find common ground on behalf of the national security and not only that, but this is not a time to further hurt our economy by devastating our defense, industrial base and that's pretty more where we are and i appreciate you all being here today. the reason i became so incensed on this issue is i don't know how we can look the american people in the eye and not put that foremost responsibility of protecting our country in making sure that we fulfill that responsibility and we should not allow our lack of courage on the big picture fiscal issues to stop us and that's what worries me around here, that we all have to show some courage and make sure that we look and address
the debt. there's no question that it has to be addressed, but we also shouldn't create a national security crisis on top of our current fiscal crisis to do that. so i appreciate you all being here today and look forward to answering your questions. thanks. >> thank you, senator, very much. please wait for a microphone because you're speaking in front of the whole audience and the whole country via c-span. please identify yourself and ask one question, please, of the senator. so we'll start here in the fourth row. >> ken meyer. i'm just confused by all of the talk of austerity and sequestration and defense spending, and what i see our
military doing around the world. we opened a new base in australia. we're talking about returning to our bases in thailand and the philippines and vietnam and we're still in central asia and 13,000 troops in kuwait, and we're beefing up our forces in the persian gulf in contention with iran. we're talkinging about possibly intervening in syria. we already intervened in libya. we have forces all over east and west africa, and opening missile bases in eastern europe and latin america. we react straighted the fourth fleet and reopening new bases in panama, colombia and peru. it seems like a disconnect between this talk of military spending reduction and what i see as an expansion of the military presence around the world which i am tempted to add which is in line with the increase of the national debt, but i'll resist that